Imagination

This is a discussion on Imagination within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; here's an impossibility: creating matter....

  1. #16
    Registered User Aran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,301
    here's an impossibility:

    creating matter.

  2. #17
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Matter is made of energy. To create matter, one would only need to modify and control pure energy to form atoms.

  3. #18
    Unregistered
    Guest
    I don't think creating matter is an impossibility, there have been many cases of things materializing like dead people, random objects etc...

  4. #19
    erstwhile
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,227
    >>Clyde: for example it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to flap my arms so fast that i take off. F-A-C-T. <<

    Even with a rocket shoved in up your arse activated by flapping your arms at a critical rate? F-A-R-T?

    >>Clyde: we are BOUND by the laws of physics<<

    Laws change. Or rather, the way we view and describe the uni/multiverse change.

    >>Clyde: it's impossible to create or destroy energy<<

    The First Law of Thermodynamics is best read as: energy cannot be created or destroyed within the limits of our experience.

    >>Clyde: it's impossible to be in England and the US at the same time<<

    Not only are you in both these places at the same time you are also smeared over the entire uni/multiverse; it is only probable that you are where you believe yourself to be.

    >>Clyde: And flapping my arms so fast that I can take off, the proof is easy, the maximum amount of lift I can get is not larger than my weight.<<

    Modify the conditions: low gravity environment, strong updraft, larger surface area and who knows what might be possible?

    >>Clyde: Can you prove that everything's possible? Didn't think so, because its not.<<

    In an infinite uni/multiverse anything is possible - some things are just ridiculously improbable.

    >>Clyde: but in philosophy you have no way of testing your hypothesis<<

    Even 'Natural Philosphy' (ie Physics)? Ultimately nothing (contentious use of zero again) is provable; we all make fundamental assertions and then stick our personal bull**** to it. We give this construct interesting labels such as 'belief' or 'reality'. They are all just models, with varying degrees of internal consistency.

    >>ygfperson: say what you want, it all boils down to fourty two<<

    Heartily agree, except with the spelling of forty, maybe.

    Anyway, on the original question: >>Do you think you can do anything you want in your imagination?<<

    Yes. For instance, I imagine that: Sweden 5 England 0 would be a great score for the football(soccer) match i'm about to watch but am afraid that will only occur in another universe that I can only truly savour through my imagination.
    Last edited by Ken Fitlike; 06-02-2002 at 03:24 AM.

  5. #20
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "Laws change. Or rather, the way we view and describe the uni/multiverse change. "

    No laws do NOT change, we do occasionally discover that the way we thought the law worked is in-fact slightly different to how it does work. BUT that doesn't happen indefinately eventually we reach the "actual" law.

    "The First Law of Thermodynamics is best read as: energy cannot be created or destroyed within the limits of our experience"

    ....... the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

    "Not only are you in both these places at the same time you are also smeared over the entire uni/multiverse; it is only probable that you are where you believe yourself to be."

    Utterly wrong, quantum effects break down when dealing with macroscopic objects. (atleast I hope you're talking about Quantum effects, otherwise you even more hideously wrong than i thought)

    "Modify the conditions: low gravity environment, strong updraft, larger surface area and who knows what might be possible? "

    You are merely changing the situation from an impossible one, to a possible one. The point is that impossible situations exist.

    The universe has fixed properties, as such some things are impossible, there is no question, there is no debate, only people who lack a basic grounding in science claim otherwise.

    "Even 'Natural Philosphy' (ie Physics)? Ultimately nothing (contentious use of zero again) is provable; we all make fundamental assertions and then stick our personal bull**** to it. We give this construct interesting labels such as 'belief' or 'reality'. They are all just models, with varying degrees of internal consistency. "

    I was refering to the untestable philosophy like the stuff Plato. You are correct in saying that nothing is absolutely proveable BUT, in reality we are faced with a choice, do we beleive our senses are based on real phenomenon or do we believe they're being "faked" ala Matrix, due to the immense improbability of the later most choose the former, given that single assertation facts exist and we CAN prove things.

    "maybe there are ways to do them all.....but we just haven't figured em out yet....I'm just saying it's a possibility"

    No commander, they are written into the laws of the universe, we will NEVER EVER break those laws, because we are bound by them; they are "theoretically" impossible rather than "practically" impossible.

    "there have been many cases of things materializing like dead people, random objects etc..."

    .......... materialising dead people........ N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E.
    Last edited by Clyde; 06-02-2002 at 06:37 AM.

  6. #21
    erstwhile
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,227
    >>Clyde: Then my taking off would not be due to my arms flapping hence it's still impossible<<

    Your original statement:>> for example it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to flap my arms so fast that i take off. F-A-C-T.<<

    The rocket is activated by you flapping your arms at a critical rate and so taking off is due to your arms flapping. Causality.

    >>Clyde: No laws do NOT change<<

    Not only do laws change, some disappear entirely eg Law of Conservation of Mass was dumped (and amalgamated) with Law of Conservation of Energy when mass-energy equivalence was realised. The point here is that science - it's methodology etc is nothing more than an arbitrary theoretical construct that is only self-validating; there are no absolute truths, no 'laws' as such, just descriptors we provide to model, within the limits of our imagination, what we describe as 'reality'. Accordingly, there is no "actual law" or, if there is, we would have no way of confirming that it was.

    >>Clyde: ....... the laws of physics are the same everywhere<<

    Assertion is not proof.

    >>Clyde: Utterly wrong, quantum effects break down when dealing with macroscopic objects.<<

    And how macroscopic is macroscopic? A nanometre? A parsec? The width of a bollock hair?

    >>Clyde: You are merely changing the situation from an impossible one, to a possible one. The point is that impossible situations exist. <<

    That is correct. I have demonstrated that what you have asserted as impossible is, in fact, possible. Which is the point.

    >>Clyde: The universe has fixed properties, as such some things are impossible, there is no question, there is no debate, only people who lack a basic grounding in science claim otherwise. <<

    Like Volume? Temperature? You had better qualify 'fixed' because it implies 'immutable'. Some things might be impossible but that's just speculation; equally all things might be possible (equally speculative).

    BTW, England 1 Sweden 1. oh, well....

  7. #22
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "Not only do laws change, some disappear entirely eg Law of Conservation of Mass was dumped (and amalgamated) with Law of Conservation of Energy when mass-energy equivalence was realised"

    Laws don't change at all, what we think of them changes, the rules the universe runs on don't suddenly alter themselves when we figure something out.

    "The point here is that science - it's methodology etc is nothing more than an arbitrary theoretical construct that is only self-validating"

    WRONG, self-validating!? What nonsense! Science is validated by EXPERIMENT, real life validates science, everytime you step in a car or aeroplane, or use a computer, or take any medicine you validate science.

    "descriptors we provide to model, within the limits of our imagination,"

    Wrong, we are most certainly NOT limited by our imagination we left those limits behind a long time ago, we can't imagine wave-particle duality, in fact we can't imagine most of quantum mechanics or relativity. We can overcome the limits of our imagination with mathematics.

    "Accordingly, there is no "actual law" or, if there is, we would have no way of confirming that it was. "

    Eh!? Of course there are "actual" laws! If there weren't "actual" laws everything would be in flux there would be no fixed properties, no repeatable experiements, no complex systems could ever exist, etc. etc.

    "Assertion is not proof"

    It's not assertation, we can track the universe back to 1*10^-32 of a second. We know what happened.

    "And how macroscopic is macroscopic? A nanometre? A parsec? The width of a bollock hair? "

    Quantum effects break down on anything larger than a simple molecule.

    "That is correct. I have demonstrated that what you have asserted as impossible is, in fact, possible. Which is the point"

    No the point was to demonstrate that impossible situations exist, changing the situation is meaningless you may as well change it to "if i had bird wings", or "if we lived in a world without gravity".

    "Like Volume? Temperature? You had better qualify 'fixed' because it implies 'immutable'."

    Properties that are not subjective; length, volume, temperature, wavelength, etc. all objective not subjective.

    "Some things might be impossible but that's just speculation; equally all things might be possible (equally speculative). "

    WRONG, utterly wrong. It's not speculation at all, claiming that all things might be possible is beyond ridiculous:

    The universe is governed by rules, we are part of the universe, we are hence governed by the universe's rules, accordingly if the rules dictate something is impossible, it is impossible. End of story.
    Last edited by Clyde; 06-02-2002 at 09:18 AM.

  8. #23
    Just one more wrong move. -KEN-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    3,230
    Originally posted by Unregistered
    In Quantum Physics there is a theory that there are an infinite number of realities, each reality parallel to another. These realities are created when something happens differently than in the other reality. For example, someone decides to not cross the street at a specific location, or even a specific molecule not going the same direction in a different reality. This means that across the expanse of space/time, there is a reality in which everything is true, where pigs can fly, and where Al Gore isn't Satan's son. But if you mean in our reality, you may be correct...but so many things defy logic it's usually not worth bothering over anyway.
    Ummm...I actually believe that this was an imaginary principal set up in the Michael Crichton book "Timeline", but nice try... (I could be wrong, though?)

  9. #24
    Just one more wrong move. -KEN-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    3,230
    Would it be possible to be shot seven times in the head at point blanc range and survive?

    Right...now shutup

  10. #25
    Its not rocket science vasanth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    1,683
    I completely agree with Clyde.. Why dont you programmers have some common sense..... There is a limitation.. There is noting called multiverse.. Everything and anything is inside the universe.. I think you guys got the strange idea of multiverse from the film "The One".. strange you guys take movies for reality.. Who know next you might claim that you are inside the matrix... Strange people..

  11. #26
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    Well, there is a theory that says there are multiple different universes, I know little about it though.

  12. #27
    Registered User Jet_Master's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    291
    I was right. What are you guys thinking...

    You cannot make a rock so heavy that you can't lift it.
    If you can, that means you cannot lift it.

    therefore, if you cannot make the rock, everything is not possible.
    if you can make the rock, and you lift it, then you didnot make the rock heavy enough so that you cannot lift it. whichever one you do, you cannot do the other one. Either way you lose...

    there fore, there are things that are IMPOSSIBLE. I just provided the PERFECT example.

    toodles.

  13. #28
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Originally posted by -KEN-
    Would it be possible to be shot seven times in the head at point blanc range and survive?
    Yes in the astral. No in the physical. All in all, anything is possible.

  14. #29
    Registered User Aran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,301
    Clyde and Fitlike are both right in their own respects.

    FItlike is right because his is arguing based on inhuman obersvation and the idea that humans don't govern what they see.

    Clyde is right because she/he is arguing based on human assertion and what should be, instead of what is and might be, in the future, observed.

    It's just a matter of perspective here.

  15. #30
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "FItlike is right because his is arguing based on inhuman obersvation and the idea that humans don't govern what they see."

    He is arguing on "inhuman observation", what the heck is that? And i'm not saying we govern what we see, only that what we see is based on reality (which is branching away from the main argument anyway).

    "Clyde is right because she/he is arguing based on human assertion and what should be, instead of what is and might be, in the future, observed"

    There are plenty of impossible situations, theoretical (laws of physics), practical (current technological limitations), and even logically inevitable (impossibility by definition ala Jet_Masers albeit some-what weird example).

    "It's just a matter of perspective here"

    Perhaps, but one perspective is wrong; thje one that sees everything as being possible.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Pretty Optimistic
    By mithrandir in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 11-06-2001, 09:27 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21